How Startupbootcamp and Rockstart Accelerator Compare – 2014 edition

This post originally ran on Thomas Mensink’s blog.

Last month, both Startupbootcamp (SBC) and Rockstart announced their new ‘classes’ of startups for their Amsterdam based acceleration program. Just like I did last year, I made an analysis of the startups in order to find out how Rockstart and SBC would distinguish themselves from each other. Last year, my conclusion was:

Rockstart has more early stage startups, which have more of a B2C orientation. Compared to SBC, more Rockstart startups want to address or create new markets. The challenge for these startups lies in marketing and creativity, competences Rockstart is good at. Zazzy is the only startup that is in the new technology and new market quadrant, which could offer both risks and, at the same time, large upside potential.

The startups of SBC more often already have a product which generates revenue, and more frequently aim for B2B (sometimes in combination with B2C), which matches well with the corporate network of SBC. The startups make more use of existing technology and have less of an aim for new markets. Therefore, it seems that the risk profile of the SBC startups  is smaller than that of Rockstart.

I was curious if the same analysis would yield the same conclusion this year. Hence I present:

The 11 of Startupbootcamp: The 10 of Rockstart:
Formtaste innovations Auxen
Giaura Bomberbot
Iristrace CoffeeStrap
Leapfunder CrowdyHouse
Proctor2Me LeadBoxer
SendCloud Songvice Social Honey
Triprebel TechnoRides
Ukky TOP Research
UndaGrid Wonderflow

A short description of every startup if given here: StartupbootcampRockstart.

What stands out?

  • In terms of origin, SBC has six startups from the Netherlands, Rockstart only three;
  • With regard to sector, it stands out that the Rockstart startups are all active in software only, while three SBC startup combine hardware with software and one (Giaura) produces hardware only;
  • Last year, SBC startups were more focused on B2B and Rockstart startups on B2C. This year, however, the business model breakdown is comparable:

Business Model

Lees verder

How Twitter can make some money

Three fresh business models in 140 characters

Today Twitter had their IPO. Read it all here. Nevertheless, Twitter is still losing money and therefore wants to increase revenues from advertisement. Fair enough, especially if they can continue to grow their customer base growth and/ or increase the time spend on Twitter. How they can be growing is well analyzed here.

twitter IPO

My colleagues and I decided to come up with some other business models that Twitter could use to make some money. Here are three new business models in 140 characters, based on our quick thoughts:

1. Use the wisdom of the crowd

Don’t annoy users, use users. Use and sell the wisdom of the crowd, eg as a voting tool, press agency, think tank, …

2. Sell to the money makers

Subscription model on Twitter data. Companies that use the data commercially (eg social media monitoring tools) pay a fee based on usage.

3. Improve the content

Users pay max $5 per month to use Twitter. The higher their influence score (like Klout) the lesser they pay. Reward system for contributors.

What would your suggestion be?